M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According to the AO, the assessee cannot be classified as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society; and since the assessee Co- operative Society is doing banking business, he treated it as a Co- operative

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

47,67,931/- u/s.40(a)(ia) is deleted. 5.9 As regards, Ground No.5 of the appellant that the Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed expenditure against legal charges for not effecting T DS u/s.194C, I find no reason to interfere with the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer as the Assessing Officer has correctly made disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for an amount

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate and dealing in wedding cards, New Year greeting cards, etc. The return of income for AY 2008-09 was filed declaring total income of Rs. 13,26,58,460/-. Against the said return of income the assessment was completed

THE KUNDAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

disallowing the claim under section 80P and made an addition of Rs.15,62,130/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that assessee accepted deposits from non- members also. In the absence of details, the AO treated interest paid to the non-members at 10% of the total interest paid. The AO also subjected the interest received from the District

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

47,888/- the assessee submitted because of the merger and the technical error in the system they are not able to get the details. The AO proposed to disallow 30% of the interest payments u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Similarly, the AO had proposed to disallow the claim made u/s. 36(1)(viia

OCHANTHURUTH SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,COCHIN vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(5), KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

disallowed the claim of assessee made u/s 80P of the Act by framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by order dated 12.03.2015 computing the total income at Rs.1,24,09,392/- According to the AO, the deduction u/s 80P of the Act was made by the AO mainly on the ground that the assessee’s main activity

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

47,24,767/- as against declared income at Rs. 4,10,09,91,004/-. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in facts and in law by disallowing revenue expenditure of Rs. 13,28,53,754/- (pre-operative expenses), incurred by appellant on assets put to use during the year for the expansion of its existing business of manufacturing tyres

NEW GIRIJA JEWELLERS,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhnew Girija Jewellers The Income Tax Officer Kmcw-1-1496, Nr. Bus Stand Ward -1, Kasaragod Main Road, Kanhangad Vs. Kasaragod 671315 [Pan: Aaepn7303F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40(b) disallowance of Rs. 2,47,700/- on account of excess remuneration claim without dealing with the relevant

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - “1. The order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) issued under section 250 of the Income Tax Act discussing the grounds relating to valuation of closing stock, disallowance of section 47

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - “1. The order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) issued under section 250 of the Income Tax Act discussing the grounds relating to valuation of closing stock, disallowance of section 47